New York v. United States
Citation
505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Facts
Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act to address a crisis in radioactive waste disposal. The Act’s “take title” provision required states to either arrange for disposal of waste generated within their borders by a certain date or take title to the waste and be liable for all damages suffered by the waste generators. New York challenged the provision as commandeering state legislative and regulatory authority.
Issue
May Congress compel states to either enact legislation providing for disposal of radioactive waste or accept liability (take title) for that waste?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court held, 6–3, that the take-title provision was unconstitutional. Congress may encourage state action through spending and regulation, but it may not compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
Rule / Doctrine
Anti-commandeering doctrine (legislative): Congress cannot commandeer state legislatures by requiring them to enact laws or implement federal regulatory schemes. States and the federal government are co-sovereigns. The accountability that democratic government demands requires that constituents be able to identify who made the law — if Congress forces states to enact federal policy, that accountability is obscured.
Significance
New York v. United States established the anti-commandeering doctrine for legislative commandeering. Printz v. United States (1997) extended the doctrine to executive commandeering. Together they form a structural federalism limit that constrains the manner in which Congress can regulate — even when it could regulate directly in the same area.